Civil Service Redundancies

x12yhp

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

Please see above - how are the statutory obligations regarding identity checks to be carried out if there are not the staff to do them? Should the DVA / SSA / Home Office civil servants just ignore these? What solution do you propose that will allow departments meet their statutory obligations and also release the staff whose job it is to carry them out?

I was referring to jobs being done for the sake of being done. If a job needs done, then someone has to do it and public money can reasonably be spent doing so. However, there are a great many instances where paper is just pushed from one person to another for no particularly good reason. This really should not be in debate since it is widely acknowledged in both private and public discussions of the civil service.

dot.bargain

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

dot.bargain, the fact is changes in legislation have introduced a statutory obligation for these additional identity checks, not a civil servant or someone trying to create fake work for civil servants to do.

The private sector has also had new obligations in respect of identity checks - have you tried to open a new bank account recently? I have and they require way more evidence to prove ID than they did when I opened my first account over 20 years ago and just gave my name and address and nothing else was required.



Please see above - how are the statutory obligations regarding identity checks to be carried out if there are not the staff to do them? Should the DVA / SSA / Home Office civil servants just ignore these? What solution do you propose that will allow departments meet their statutory obligations and also release the staff whose job it is to carry them out?

You're missing the point!

A sledge hammer to crack a nut.

I could understand it if I was applying for a licence/Passport etc for the very first time.
Like I said I have been driving for decades, not only did I submit my old driving licence (ahem unique driver number!) and a photo which doesnt appear to be any different than the last one, but I also had to send my passport (registered delivery) and fill in countless sections on the application form.

Pointless paperwork, carried out by some civil servant who doesn't really need to be doing the task.

For the record I have changed address since my last licence..........if the legislation and civil service is so good, howcome nobody took the time to verify my address.

Only a random selection of photos are checked.

It should be moving along the same route as booking an MOT, you don't need to actually speak to some person, or have them sitting behind a desk.

As for opening a bank account, not sure which banks you are going to, but anyone can apply online for a loan or credit card and have the decision approved in no time. They don't need a photo to prove who they claim to be.



Regards

Dorothy

Golden_Anemone

dot.bargain wrote: »

You're missing the point!

A sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Only a random selection of photos are checked.

No Dorothy, I'm not, I'm afraid that you are.

What you really mean is you are annoyed that you were unfortunate enough to have your application selected for a random check.

If legislation tells the DVLNI staff that they need to check the photo ID of a certain percentage of applicants for renewal driving licences they have to do this, end of. Do you really think the staff decided it would be fun to do so? Statutory obligations are not optional - they are the law.

If your complaint is about the legislation then it is not with the civil servants - it's with the politicians who make the law.

You would perhaps prefer a system that allowed anyone to steal your driving licence and have it renewed to use it fraudulently, perhaps to take out credit in your name. I and most people wouldn't. The identity checking legislation is for everyone's protection, not just to inconvenience people.

Golden_Anemone

x12yhp wrote: »

I was referring to jobs being done for the sake of being done. If a job needs done, then someone has to do it and public money can reasonably be spent doing so. However, there are a great many instances where paper is just pushed from one person to another for no particularly good reason. This really should not be in debate since it is widely acknowledged in both private and public discussions of the civil service.

It is often claimed yes; but like in Dorothy's example that is usually because the person making the claim misunderstands the legislative or policy driver which necessitates the action.

Perhaps you could give us an actual example where you know that work is artificially created with no real purpose other than keeping civil servants in work or causing inconvenience to people.

debmin39

well contacted my department to make enquiries regarding my career break and unfortunately they were as useful as a chocolate teapot!! they said could not forsee what vacancies would arise or when so if i vow to return now i may or may not get placed! as for taking voluntary redunancy knew nothing about this!! so im no better off agggg!!

x12yhp

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

It is often claimed yes; but like in Dorothy's example that is usually because the person making the claim misunderstands the legislative or policy driver which necessitates the action.

Perhaps you could give us an actual example where you know that work is artificially created with no real purpose other than keeping civil servants in work or causing inconvenience to people.

My wife was formerly employed in belfast city council. Routinely the department was understaffed because of sickness. Strangely she managed to read half a dozen books a month, during work time.

In a different direction... I am friendly with a city councillor. He spends a lot of his time dealing with the local CS and cannot for the life of him work out what half the people in the various offices are doing because they too seem to be either sitting about reading or playing phone tag with the public because no one will take responsibility for jobs.

Are these just anecdote? Is the massed anecdote still able to be dismissed? In fact is NI so special a place that we do in fact need a larger public sector than in the rest of the UK? Perhaps you might inform us how you would be so knowledgeable and how you can also come to us without having any bias....

Edited:
Ah I see you are in the NICS and in fact of legal training. So a vested interest and a background in bending the truth...

Golden_Anemone

Personal insults will always work for some people when they don't have a sound basis for their argument x12yhp - you can try to disguise the fact that you have yet to cite a single example of NICS overstaffing but you can't hide it.

I, unlike your wife, have always been fully occupied in my civil service career and have never had time to read more than a few pages in my lunchbreak. I have worked and still work with people though who will always prioritise their leisure activities above work that needs doing, they exist in every line of work, public or private. Perhaps your wife is one of these? I have no experience of local government but imagine there are lazy people working there too, in fact your example confirms it.

I haven't said the public sector in NI isn't too large. I'm on record if you would care to extend your "research" on me beyond the headlines that I believe the Executive needs to be halved and that the subsequent reduction in departments would mean substantial savings in the civil service. It's only politicians though who can make those changes, not civil servants. There is a culture here of blaming politicians wastefulness and now legislative bureaucracy on the civil service and it is my right to defend myself and my colleagues against this unfairness. You clearly have your mind made up. So be it.

x12yhp

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

Personal insults will always work for some people when they don't have a sound basis for their argument x12yhp - you can try to disguise the fact that you have yet to cite a single example of NICS overstaffing but you can't hide it.

You are telling us we are all wrong on the basis of incompetence... that sounds awfully insulting to me. How about you jump down off the big tall horse...

Now, you know the way I didn't cite a single example... well how come you then proceeded to acknowledge the example that I did not give??!!

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

I, unlike your wife, have always been fully occupied in my civil service career and have never had time to read more than a few pages in my lunchbreak. I have worked and still work with people though who will always prioritise their leisure activities above work that needs doing, they exist in every line of work, public or private. Perhaps your wife is one of these? I have no experience of local government but imagine there are lazy people working there too, in fact your example confirms it.

Unfortunately, your attempted slur does not insult me at all. The wife was sent packing. Maybe she is your manager and that is why you are so much busier than many civil servants. Do give her my best.

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

I haven't said the public sector in NI isn't too large. I'm on record if you would care to extend your "research" on me beyond the headlines that I believe the Executive needs to be halved and that the subsequent reduction in departments would mean substantial savings in the civil service. It's only politicians though who can make those changes, not civil servants. There is a culture here of blaming politicians wastefulness and now legislative bureaucracy on the civil service and it is my right to defend myself and my colleagues against this unfairness. You clearly have your mind made up. So be it.

So to summarise... you think that there is no real wastefulness in the CS and jobs are not there for the sake of it. Yet you also believe that the executive is twice the size it should be and succeeds in little more than making up pointless jobs for civil servants.

Was it the CS or the legal training that helped you with these deductions? :rotfl:

Now I will leave you alone to tell everyone how excellent you are ;o)

Golden_Anemone

x12yhp wrote: »

You are telling us we are all wrong on the basis of incompetence... that sounds awfully insulting to me. How about you jump down off the big tall horse...

Us? I don't see anyone else but you quoted in my posts. Clearly I am blind as well as wrong as I just don't see your supporters as clearly as you seem to.

Now, you know the way I didn't cite a single example... well how come you then proceeded to acknowledge the example that I did not give??!!

The only example you cited was of Belfast City Council - council staff are not and never have been NI Civil Servants - you know this surely?

Unfortunately, your attempted slur does not insult me at all. The wife was sent packing. Maybe she is your manager and that is why you are so much busier than many civil servants. Do give her my best.

I am not attempting to slur you at all, you're doing fine all by yourself. My manager is a man and a NI Civil Servant so unless your ex-wife has had extensive surgery and changed employer I don't believe so. Though your misunderstanding on who employs her does rather tend to explain your irrational criticism of civil servants.

So to summarise... you think that there is no real wastefulness in the CS and jobs are not there for the sake of it. Yet you also believe that the executive is twice the size it should be and succeeds in little more than making up pointless jobs for civil servants.

I think most 6 year olds would work out that reducing the number of departments would mean fewer staff but I'll spell it out for you as you seem to have some difficulty with the figures. Each department has a Minister and a Permanent Secretary - these people all have teams of staff supporting them on the departments business. So if there were say 6 departments instead of 12 then there would only be need of 6 Ministerial private offices and 6 Permanent Secretaries and offices. Etc, etc, etc. Simples.

Was it the CS or the legal training that helped you with these deductions? :rotfl:

Most of it is down to a good primary school education actually. :-)

Now I will leave you alone to tell everyone how excellent you are ;o)

Thanks for all your help. :cool:

dot.bargain

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

No Dorothy, I'm not, I'm afraid that you are.

What you really mean is you are annoyed that you were unfortunate enough to have your application selected for a random check.

If legislation tells the DVLNI staff that they need to check the photo ID of a certain percentage of applicants for renewal driving licences they have to do this, end of. Do you really think the staff decided it would be fun to do so? Statutory obligations are not optional - they are the law.

If your complaint is about the legislation then it is not with the civil servants - it's with the politicians who make the law.

You would perhaps prefer a system that allowed anyone to steal your driving licence and have it renewed to use it fraudulently, perhaps to take out credit in your name. I and most people wouldn't. The identity checking legislation is for everyone's protection, not just to inconvenience people.

Actually no, there was no follow up,

Over a century ago, women were not permitted to vote, does this make the law correct?

I should be on a database held by DVLNI, telling them of my identity. I could go out tomorrow and dye my hair, the photo is irrelevant, yet someone has to have proof to tick the boxes

From the top down the civil service if flawed, only in the civil service can the under achiever get promoted with the 7 year rule....says it all really. Sit on your back side for 7 years, dont worry you'll get your chance of promotion!